EAT Practice and Procedure – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The Employment Tribunal refused an application by the respondent employer to join two other respondents. This was made at the beginning of a pre-hearing review at which the issue to be determined was whether the claimant was employed under a contract of employment with the respondent. That hearing was not completed on that day and was adjourned to a later date. In the course of giving its reasons on joinder, a decision given prior to the pre-hearing review being resumed, the Tribunal made reference to certain aspects of the evidence which had not been relied upon by either party in the course of argument, and expressed conclusions which were highly relevant to the issue to be determined in the pre-hearing review. The respondent alleged that the Tribunal had erred in law both in its approach to the joinder issue, and because it had effectively pre-judged the issue to be determined at the pre-hearing review, or at the very least had given the impression that it had done so. The EAT upheld both grounds of appeal.
Judges:
Elias P J
Citations:
[2007] UKEAT 0532 – 07 – 0412
Links:
Cited by:
See Also – Alstom Transport v Tilson EAT 11-Nov-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Worker, employee or neither
The Employment Judge was wrong to decide a contractual document was bogus so opening the way for a finding in the Claimant’s favour that he had an . .
See Also – Tilson v Alstom Transport CA 19-Nov-2010
The parties disputed whether the claimant agency worker was in law the employee of the respondent.
Held: The test was whether it was necessary to infer such a contract to explain the conduct of the parties (Elias LJ). The EAT were right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261799
